Talk to me about protein shakes
Replies
-
TimothyFish wrote: »Iron_Feline wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »Liftng4Lis wrote: »
No, that isn't true. Body builders love to talk about these newbie gains. The actual problem is that body builders reduce their body fat percentages to dangerously low levels so that any calorie deficit will result in significant muscle loss, just because they don't have enough fat to supply the energy they need. For normal people, it is certainly possible to get the required energy from fat while building muscle. If the calorie deficit is small, gaining weight is certainly possible.
Any science to back up your opinion?
Studies that actually back it up would be nice. So far we haven't seen any.
It wouldn't do any good because some body builder would just say, "that's just newbie gains" as if that is the answer to everything. The simple fact that fat has 4 or 5 times the number of calories that muscle having the same mass has is sufficient to tell us that it is possible.
Not quite, fat has 2.25 times the cals of muscle, not 4-5 times. and scale would still not go up, if in a deficit it will go down, even if you build some muscle, it would be less than the total weight loss.0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »Iron_Feline wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »Liftng4Lis wrote: »
No, that isn't true. Body builders love to talk about these newbie gains. The actual problem is that body builders reduce their body fat percentages to dangerously low levels so that any calorie deficit will result in significant muscle loss, just because they don't have enough fat to supply the energy they need. For normal people, it is certainly possible to get the required energy from fat while building muscle. If the calorie deficit is small, gaining weight is certainly possible.
Any science to back up your opinion?
Studies that actually back it up would be nice. So far we haven't seen any.
It wouldn't do any good because some body builder would just say, "that's just newbie gains" as if that is the answer to everything. The simple fact that fat has 4 or 5 times the number of calories that muscle having the same mass has is sufficient to tell us that it is possible.
Lol no
If you posted an actually study that back up your beliefs everyone would agree with you. If it were possible why are more people not doing it?
I did a recomp when I first started lifting - but I ate at maintenance or just above and I didn't gain any weight - I just got smaller, no doubt the newbie gains helped at lot. But no-one claims you can't recomp, just that it is slow and an imprecise art.
If you have an actual scientific study that you can gain an appreciable amount of muscle - enough that you would gain weight while losing fat please show us.
Otherwise stating the calories that muscle and fat have mean nothing, it certainly doesn't tell us that it is possible.
0 -
Liftng4Lis wrote: »
Or water retention in the muscles
But even that would level off after a while - the person claims their scale is steadily climbing. Therefore they are not in a deficit.0 -
Iron_Feline wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »Iron_Feline wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »Liftng4Lis wrote: »
No, that isn't true. Body builders love to talk about these newbie gains. The actual problem is that body builders reduce their body fat percentages to dangerously low levels so that any calorie deficit will result in significant muscle loss, just because they don't have enough fat to supply the energy they need. For normal people, it is certainly possible to get the required energy from fat while building muscle. If the calorie deficit is small, gaining weight is certainly possible.
Any science to back up your opinion?
Studies that actually back it up would be nice. So far we haven't seen any.
It wouldn't do any good because some body builder would just say, "that's just newbie gains" as if that is the answer to everything. The simple fact that fat has 4 or 5 times the number of calories that muscle having the same mass has is sufficient to tell us that it is possible.
Lol no
If you posted an actually study that back up your beliefs everyone would agree with you. If it were possible why are more people not doing it?
I did a recomp when I first started lifting - but I ate at maintenance or just above and I didn't gain any weight - I just got smaller, no doubt the newbie gains helped at lot. But no-one claims you can't recomp, just that it is slow and an imprecise art.
If you have an actual scientific study that you can gain an appreciable amount of muscle - enough that you would gain weight while losing fat please show us.
Otherwise stating the calories that muscle and fat have mean nothing, it certainly doesn't tell us that it is possible.
Seems you are talking about two seperate things so you are definitely right here. While possible to gain some muscle while lossing some fat (note the importance of the qualifier "some") there is no way you can gain more muscle mass than you can lose in fat mass and thus you cannot actually lose fat while gaining true body weight (i.e. other than transient weight due to water, food etc). Essentially, if you are not an advanced, or perhaps late intermediate, lifter AND are not too lean you could use some fat to cover the calories needed to build muscle but you would need to overcome such things as AMPK with sufficient insulin, IGF-1, IGF-2, MGH etc to allow for added muscle to be synthesized, and it would be suboptimal to a surplus. In other words, you need to workout very hard and eat right around maintenance to have any hope of this happening.
It is very hard to gain muscle in a caloric deficit but is possible under certain restricted circumstance but this is basically a recomp and will take time.0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »
Seems you are talking about two seperate things so you are definitely right here. While possible to gain some muscle while lossing some fat (note the importance of the qualifier "some") there is no way you can gain more muscle mass than you can lose in fat mass and thus you cannot actually lose fat while gaining true body weight (i.e. other than transient weight due to water, food etc). Essentially, if you are not an advanced, or perhaps late intermediate, lifter AND are not too lean you could use some fat to cover the calories needed to build muscle but you would need to overcome such things as AMPK with sufficient insulin, IGF-1, IGF-2, MGH etc to allow for added muscle to be synthesized, and it would be suboptimal to a surplus. In other words, you need to workout very hard and eat right around maintenance to have any hope of this happening.
It is very hard to gain muscle in a caloric deficit but is possible under certain restricted circumstance but this is basically a recomp and will take time.
THIS is just sexy! I don't care who you are.0 -
Liftng4Lis wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »
Seems you are talking about two seperate things so you are definitely right here. While possible to gain some muscle while lossing some fat (note the importance of the qualifier "some") there is no way you can gain more muscle mass than you can lose in fat mass and thus you cannot actually lose fat while gaining true body weight (i.e. other than transient weight due to water, food etc). Essentially, if you are not an advanced, or perhaps late intermediate, lifter AND are not too lean you could use some fat to cover the calories needed to build muscle but you would need to overcome such things as AMPK with sufficient insulin, IGF-1, IGF-2, MGH etc to allow for added muscle to be synthesized, and it would be suboptimal to a surplus. In other words, you need to workout very hard and eat right around maintenance to have any hope of this happening.
It is very hard to gain muscle in a caloric deficit but is possible under certain restricted circumstance but this is basically a recomp and will take time.
THIS is just sexy! I don't care who you are.
You've already put this to pracitse -- I've seen some of your progress pics!
0 -
-
The only thing i can say about protein powder really is that it has protein in it. It's good for preserving your muscles during dieting. Protein that is not necessarily the shakes. Try to get a good powder that is 100% Whey protein. There are a lot of cheap brands that have soya and milk protein in them that are harder for your body to absorb or use. If your protein powder doesn't mix really easily at a ratio of 100ml of liquid to 1 scoop of protein it's probably bad.0
-
Cereal_Snacker wrote: »
This article has several things mashed together in a cacaphony that makes it hard to determine what is really being warned against. Is it the pre-workout stimulants? High protein (define what that is btw)? Suppliments in general? Seems pretty standard BBC heath reporting, i.e. sub-par to extremely poor.0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Cereal_Snacker wrote: »
This article has several things mashed together in a cacaphony that makes it hard to determine what is really being warned against. Is it the pre-workout stimulants? High protein (define what that is btw)? Suppliments in general? Seems pretty standard BBC heath reporting, i.e. sub-par to extremely poor.
Newsbeat is also aimed at kids/teenagers.
So there's that.0 -
The only thing i can say about protein powder really is that it has protein in it. It's good for preserving your muscles during dieting. Protein that is not necessarily the shakes. Try to get a good powder that is 100% Whey protein. There are a lot of cheap brands that have soya and milk protein in them that are harder for your body to absorb or use. If your protein powder doesn't mix really easily at a ratio of 100ml of liquid to 1 scoop of protein it's probably bad.
Just out of interest, what do you think Whey is made from? *
*Clue you've just told people to avoid it.0 -
Standard alarmist rubbish. Probably pandering to people who have some kind of aversion to any form of diet supplementation. Or who resent those who use them and succeed in building muscle.0
-
Standard alarmist rubbish. Probably pandering to people who have some kind of aversion to any form of diet supplementation. Or who resent those who use them and succeed in building muscle.
Who are you talking to?
Please use the quote button, it will help your posts make more sense.0 -
Iron_Feline wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Cereal_Snacker wrote: »
This article has several things mashed together in a cacaphony that makes it hard to determine what is really being warned against. Is it the pre-workout stimulants? High protein (define what that is btw)? Suppliments in general? Seems pretty standard BBC heath reporting, i.e. sub-par to extremely poor.
Newsbeat is also aimed at kids/teenagers.
So there's that.
Ahh, ok thanks for clarifying that.0 -
Iron_Feline wrote: »Standard alarmist rubbish. Probably pandering to people who have some kind of aversion to any form of diet supplementation. Or who resent those who use them and succeed in building muscle.
Who are you talking to?
Please use the quote button, it will help your posts make more sense.
Answering to my post, I'm assuming.0 -
OP- I drink a protein shake daily to hit my protein goal. If you are not paying attention to your protein daily- I would start! I lost 90 lbs as well- and how I wish I would have been lifting and watching my macros back when I started- I would be strong and fit instead of "skinny fat" I am working on fixing that now! My fav protein is Dymatize ISO-100 in Chocolate- it is easy on digestion and mixed with some almond milk tastes pretty delicious!0
-
TimothyFish wrote: »Iron_Feline wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »Liftng4Lis wrote: »
No, that isn't true. Body builders love to talk about these newbie gains. The actual problem is that body builders reduce their body fat percentages to dangerously low levels so that any calorie deficit will result in significant muscle loss, just because they don't have enough fat to supply the energy they need. For normal people, it is certainly possible to get the required energy from fat while building muscle. If the calorie deficit is small, gaining weight is certainly possible.
Any science to back up your opinion?
Studies that actually back it up would be nice. So far we haven't seen any.
It wouldn't do any good because some body builder would just say, "that's just newbie gains" as if that is the answer to everything. The simple fact that fat has 4 or 5 times the number of calories that muscle having the same mass has is sufficient to tell us that it is possible.
Well the more likely reason is just water retention. Occam's Razor: the burden of proof is on you.0 -
I love protein shakes! It's usually what I have for breakfast, actually. One scoop of the powder (my favorite is chocolate peanut butter), a cup of almond milk, 1/4 cup of blueberries, 1/2 cup of spinach leaves and a serving of Nutella. Tastes like a milkshake and leaves me feeling full for hours so I'm not tempted to eat junk food in between meals!0
-
TimothyFish wrote: »Iron_Feline wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »Liftng4Lis wrote: »
No, that isn't true. Body builders love to talk about these newbie gains. The actual problem is that body builders reduce their body fat percentages to dangerously low levels so that any calorie deficit will result in significant muscle loss, just because they don't have enough fat to supply the energy they need. For normal people, it is certainly possible to get the required energy from fat while building muscle. If the calorie deficit is small, gaining weight is certainly possible.
Any science to back up your opinion?
Studies that actually back it up would be nice. So far we haven't seen any.
It wouldn't do any good because some body builder would just say, "that's just newbie gains" as if that is the answer to everything. The simple fact that fat has 4 or 5 times the number of calories that muscle having the same mass has is sufficient to tell us that it is possible.
Not quite, fat has 2.25 times the cals of muscle, not 4-5 times. and scale would still not go up, if in a deficit it will go down, even if you build some muscle, it would be less than the total weight loss.
Not so. Fat has 2.25 times the calories of protein, but muscle is made up of other things besides protein.0 -
We'll just agree to disagree here. I've been in a caloric deficit and seen weight gain through muscle, where my clothes all seemed to fit more loose but my scale seemed to be very slowly and steadily climbing. Not trying to mislead anyone, just sharing my experience.
+1. This is mirror scenario I'm experiencing.
I'm in calorie deficit and my gain is through muscle. I have dropped 2 pant size and I've gone from XL to Large for T-shirts.
I struggled and struggled for upper body definition but finally seeing some good Triceps and little biceps.
I'm in the same shoes as this poster.
EDTA: It took me an almost an year (may onwards) where even @ Calorie Deficit and no scale moving I came down 2 pant size.0 -
We'll just agree to disagree here. I've been in a caloric deficit and seen weight gain through muscle, where my clothes all seemed to fit more loose but my scale seemed to be very slowly and steadily climbing. Not trying to mislead anyone, just sharing my experience.
+1. This is mirror scenario I'm experiencing.
I'm in calorie deficit and my gain is through muscle. I have dropped 2 pant size and I've gone from XL to Large for T-shirts.
I struggled and struggled for upper body definition but finally seeing some good Triceps and little biceps.
I'm in the same shoes as this poster.
EDTA: It took me an almost an year (may onwards) where even @ Calorie Deficit and no scale moving I came down 2 pant size.
Congratulations on your progress! I went from large to medium myself. I somewhat regret mentioning this in the first place, people are wildly spinning what I said. Anyway. The gain happened while I was much more closely monitoring my diet and during which time I was a lot more strict with my workout regiment. Could've been water weight, newb gains, the fact that I put on weight easily, who knows! Frankly, who cares? I wish people would stop quoting me like I said some scientific fact. Lol.0 -
Iron_Feline wrote: »The only thing i can say about protein powder really is that it has protein in it. It's good for preserving your muscles during dieting. Protein that is not necessarily the shakes. Try to get a good powder that is 100% Whey protein. There are a lot of cheap brands that have soya and milk protein in them that are harder for your body to absorb or use. If your protein powder doesn't mix really easily at a ratio of 100ml of liquid to 1 scoop of protein it's probably bad.
Just out of interest, what do you think Whey is made from? *
*Clue you've just told people to avoid it.
There is a difference between pure whey protein and the mix of various different proteins that constitute "milk" protein. Almost every time I have had a protein powder with milk or soya protein in it it has A) not mixed or 'B)' given me diarrhea, extreme flatulence .. or all of the above. Since the pure whey and milk protein have such dramatically different effects on my system I can assure you they are different things. Milk protein has some whey in it. But it has a bunch of other stuff in it too.
0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »Liftng4Lis wrote: »
No, that isn't true. Body builders love to talk about these newbie gains. The actual problem is that body builders reduce their body fat percentages to dangerously low levels so that any calorie deficit will result in significant muscle loss, just because they don't have enough fat to supply the energy they need. For normal people, it is certainly possible to get the required energy from fat while building muscle. If the calorie deficit is small, gaining weight is certainly possible.
Theres a lot of silly stuff in this thread but, well done, you definitely won!
Do you even physics?
0 -
Iron_Feline wrote: »The only thing i can say about protein powder really is that it has protein in it. It's good for preserving your muscles during dieting. Protein that is not necessarily the shakes. Try to get a good powder that is 100% Whey protein. There are a lot of cheap brands that have soya and milk protein in them that are harder for your body to absorb or use. If your protein powder doesn't mix really easily at a ratio of 100ml of liquid to 1 scoop of protein it's probably bad.
Just out of interest, what do you think Whey is made from? *
*Clue you've just told people to avoid it.
Bwahaha love it!
0 -
Iron_Feline wrote: »The only thing i can say about protein powder really is that it has protein in it. It's good for preserving your muscles during dieting. Protein that is not necessarily the shakes. Try to get a good powder that is 100% Whey protein. There are a lot of cheap brands that have soya and milk protein in them that are harder for your body to absorb or use. If your protein powder doesn't mix really easily at a ratio of 100ml of liquid to 1 scoop of protein it's probably bad.
Just out of interest, what do you think Whey is made from? *
*Clue you've just told people to avoid it.
There is a difference between pure whey protein and the mix of various different proteins that constitute "milk" protein. Almost every time I have had a protein powder with milk or soya protein in it it has A) not mixed or 'B)' given me diarrhea, extreme flatulence .. or all of the above. Since the pure whey and milk protein have such dramatically different effects on my system I can assure you they are different things. Milk protein has some whey in it. But it has a bunch of other stuff in it too.
Then maybe you're just allergic to casein. It doesn't mean that it's inferior. It's a fine protein.
I drink a protein powder that has whey, casein, and egg protein. I have no idea what you mean about it "not mixing".
Soy is also a fine protein for people who tolerate it. Don't presume that your personal intolerance to things applies to everyone.
0 -
Iron_Feline wrote: »Liftng4Lis wrote: »
Ok. Thanks.
No it isn't. Here's two studies where LBM and strength increased as fat mass was lost in elite athletes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21896944
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21558571?dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000,f1000m,isrctn (abstracts only, sorry)
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/58/4/561.long
Muscle gains in weight training obese females during 800 cal/day diets verified by biopsy.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002822398000947
Loss of fat and gains in fat-free mass (lbm) in normal weight women eating ad libitum while weight training.
LBM and muscle can be gained as fat is lost (and fat is only lost in a calorie deficit). This can happen in both trained (non-newbie) and untrained individuals. The gain in muscle may mask some fat loss, and I've read posts from people who end up happy at higher weights than they expected to, as the last time they were at that weight they were significantly less muscled. In people who are already lean, a smaller deficit is recommended to protect LBM when restricting calories to lose fat. Bulking/cutting is faster, and less frustrating, but it is possible to build muscle in a calorie deficit, for both newbies and more experienced lifters.
Lol no.
In the first two studies the LBM was small compared to the fat loss and more importantly they lost weigh.
The person you are referencing is gaining weigh. They are not gaining muscle at a rate that masks fat loss.
If they had gained a little weight but then it levelled off I would say they had newbie gains then ending up doing a slow recomp. But they said their weight is steadily rising. So they are not in a deficit.
Did you even read the third study? They didn't gain muscle, in fact 24% of the weight they lost was from LBM. It states that weight loss at a severe deficit is not affected by lifting and it doesn't alter the composition of the weight loss.
And the fourth is discussing body recomp. You'll note that there was no significant change in body mass.
None of these studies back up your assertions.
Fat is lost and muscle gained when eating at maintance or slightly above in a recomp. Not in a deficit bar initial newbie gains that at most will be a lb or two if you're really lucky.
The person is gaining weight steadily. They are not in a deficit.
The people who were happy at a higher weight than they expected still lost weight. This doesn't mean they continued to build muscle as they lost weight, just that they kept what they had unlike a lot of dieters.
Sigh.
You are in a calorie deficit if you lose fat (3500 calories in deficit for every pound of fat lost). If gaining muscle required a calorie surplus (which it does not), and losing fat required a calorie deficit (which it does) then those who recomp and do both at the same time would be in both a calorie deficit and surplus at the same time (and you say I don't make any sense).
Anyone who loses fat is in a calorie deficit regardless of whether or not they lose weight. So, if I gain 2 lbs of water and lose 1 lb of fat, I was in a calorie deficit, even though the scale shows a weight gain - see how it works?
People who gain muscle while losing fat are therefore automatically in a calorie deficit, regardless of what the scale says. The muscle gain is from activity and available protein, not the extra calories. These studies show that muscle can be gained in a calorie deficit (as established by fat loss).0 -
Iron_Feline wrote: »Liftng4Lis wrote: »
Ok. Thanks.
No it isn't. Here's two studies where LBM and strength increased as fat mass was lost in elite athletes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21896944
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21558571?dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000,f1000m,isrctn (abstracts only, sorry)
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/58/4/561.long
Muscle gains in weight training obese females during 800 cal/day diets verified by biopsy.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002822398000947
Loss of fat and gains in fat-free mass (lbm) in normal weight women eating ad libitum while weight training.
LBM and muscle can be gained as fat is lost (and fat is only lost in a calorie deficit). This can happen in both trained (non-newbie) and untrained individuals. The gain in muscle may mask some fat loss, and I've read posts from people who end up happy at higher weights than they expected to, as the last time they were at that weight they were significantly less muscled. In people who are already lean, a smaller deficit is recommended to protect LBM when restricting calories to lose fat. Bulking/cutting is faster, and less frustrating, but it is possible to build muscle in a calorie deficit, for both newbies and more experienced lifters.
Lol no.
In the first two studies the LBM was small compared to the fat loss and more importantly they lost weigh.
The person you are referencing is gaining weigh. They are not gaining muscle at a rate that masks fat loss.
If they had gained a little weight but then it levelled off I would say they had newbie gains then ending up doing a slow recomp. But they said their weight is steadily rising. So they are not in a deficit.
Did you even read the third study? They didn't gain muscle, in fact 24% of the weight they lost was from LBM. It states that weight loss at a severe deficit is not affected by lifting and it doesn't alter the composition of the weight loss.
And the fourth is discussing body recomp. You'll note that there was no significant change in body mass.
None of these studies back up your assertions.
Fat is lost and muscle gained when eating at maintance or slightly above in a recomp. Not in a deficit bar initial newbie gains that at most will be a lb or two if you're really lucky.
The person is gaining weight steadily. They are not in a deficit.
The people who were happy at a higher weight than they expected still lost weight. This doesn't mean they continued to build muscle as they lost weight, just that they kept what they had unlike a lot of dieters.
Sigh.
You are in a calorie deficit if you lose fat (3500 calories in deficit for every pound of fat lost). If gaining muscle required a calorie surplus (which it does not), and losing fat required a calorie deficit (which it does) then those who recomp and do both at the same time would be in both a calorie deficit and surplus at the same time (and you say I don't make any sense).
Anyone who loses fat is in a calorie deficit regardless of whether or not they lose weight. So, if I gain 2 lbs of water and lose 1 lb of fat, I was in a calorie deficit, even though the scale shows a weight gain - see how it works?
People who gain muscle while losing fat are therefore automatically in a calorie deficit, regardless of what the scale says. The muscle gain is from activity and available protein, not the extra calories. These studies show that muscle can be gained in a calorie deficit (as established by fat loss).
So glad you addressed how none of the studies backed your claims, I'm guessing you still haven't read them.
And just lol to your "understanding" of how the body works. That last paragraph well I just can't even...0 -
Iron_Feline wrote: »Iron_Feline wrote: »Liftng4Lis wrote: »
Ok. Thanks.
No it isn't. Here's two studies where LBM and strength increased as fat mass was lost in elite athletes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21896944
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21558571?dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000,f1000m,isrctn (abstracts only, sorry)
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/58/4/561.long
Muscle gains in weight training obese females during 800 cal/day diets verified by biopsy.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002822398000947
Loss of fat and gains in fat-free mass (lbm) in normal weight women eating ad libitum while weight training.
LBM and muscle can be gained as fat is lost (and fat is only lost in a calorie deficit). This can happen in both trained (non-newbie) and untrained individuals. The gain in muscle may mask some fat loss, and I've read posts from people who end up happy at higher weights than they expected to, as the last time they were at that weight they were significantly less muscled. In people who are already lean, a smaller deficit is recommended to protect LBM when restricting calories to lose fat. Bulking/cutting is faster, and less frustrating, but it is possible to build muscle in a calorie deficit, for both newbies and more experienced lifters.
Lol no.
In the first two studies the LBM was small compared to the fat loss and more importantly they lost weigh.
The person you are referencing is gaining weigh. They are not gaining muscle at a rate that masks fat loss.
If they had gained a little weight but then it levelled off I would say they had newbie gains then ending up doing a slow recomp. But they said their weight is steadily rising. So they are not in a deficit.
Did you even read the third study? They didn't gain muscle, in fact 24% of the weight they lost was from LBM. It states that weight loss at a severe deficit is not affected by lifting and it doesn't alter the composition of the weight loss.
And the fourth is discussing body recomp. You'll note that there was no significant change in body mass.
None of these studies back up your assertions.
Fat is lost and muscle gained when eating at maintance or slightly above in a recomp. Not in a deficit bar initial newbie gains that at most will be a lb or two if you're really lucky.
The person is gaining weight steadily. They are not in a deficit.
The people who were happy at a higher weight than they expected still lost weight. This doesn't mean they continued to build muscle as they lost weight, just that they kept what they had unlike a lot of dieters.
Sigh.
You are in a calorie deficit if you lose fat (3500 calories in deficit for every pound of fat lost). If gaining muscle required a calorie surplus (which it does not), and losing fat required a calorie deficit (which it does) then those who recomp and do both at the same time would be in both a calorie deficit and surplus at the same time (and you say I don't make any sense).
Anyone who loses fat is in a calorie deficit regardless of whether or not they lose weight. So, if I gain 2 lbs of water and lose 1 lb of fat, I was in a calorie deficit, even though the scale shows a weight gain - see how it works?
People who gain muscle while losing fat are therefore automatically in a calorie deficit, regardless of what the scale says. The muscle gain is from activity and available protein, not the extra calories. These studies show that muscle can be gained in a calorie deficit (as established by fat loss).
So glad you addressed how none of the studies backed your claims, I'm guessing you still haven't read them.
And just lol to your "understanding" of how the body works. That last paragraph well I just can't even...
Whose body are we talking about here?
Is it @Iron_Feline or is it @kyta32 or is it @runner475 or is it @int3rpo1
I'm really in this tight situation where for past almost a year now my scale has not moved even 0.5 lbs plus minus.
I'm in Calorie Deficit but I have come down from 12 size pant to now 8 size pant.
From XL size, I'm now wearing Large size Tees (I have boobs - 38 D bra)
What in the world is going now that the scale won't move in spite of being in calorie deficit.
If this is not "muscle gain" @ Calorie Deficit then what in the world is this?
I weigh everything that goes in my mouth exception when I go out to eat.
Whose " body works" are we referring here? These are my results. They don't fit into anything that was mentioned.
EDTA : I weigh everything in grams on food scale that goes in my mouth exception when I go out to eat.
I go to a HIIT class lately and every Monday and Friday my trainer makes me weigh on his scale. And his response just 2 weeks back in his own words "What in the world! You are steady. It's good but ...."
0 -
Iron_Feline wrote: »Iron_Feline wrote: »Liftng4Lis wrote: »
Ok. Thanks.
No it isn't. Here's two studies where LBM and strength increased as fat mass was lost in elite athletes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21896944
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21558571?dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000,f1000m,isrctn (abstracts only, sorry)
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/58/4/561.long
Muscle gains in weight training obese females during 800 cal/day diets verified by biopsy.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002822398000947
Loss of fat and gains in fat-free mass (lbm) in normal weight women eating ad libitum while weight training.
LBM and muscle can be gained as fat is lost (and fat is only lost in a calorie deficit). This can happen in both trained (non-newbie) and untrained individuals. The gain in muscle may mask some fat loss, and I've read posts from people who end up happy at higher weights than they expected to, as the last time they were at that weight they were significantly less muscled. In people who are already lean, a smaller deficit is recommended to protect LBM when restricting calories to lose fat. Bulking/cutting is faster, and less frustrating, but it is possible to build muscle in a calorie deficit, for both newbies and more experienced lifters.
Lol no.
In the first two studies the LBM was small compared to the fat loss and more importantly they lost weigh.
The person you are referencing is gaining weigh. They are not gaining muscle at a rate that masks fat loss.
If they had gained a little weight but then it levelled off I would say they had newbie gains then ending up doing a slow recomp. But they said their weight is steadily rising. So they are not in a deficit.
Did you even read the third study? They didn't gain muscle, in fact 24% of the weight they lost was from LBM. It states that weight loss at a severe deficit is not affected by lifting and it doesn't alter the composition of the weight loss.
And the fourth is discussing body recomp. You'll note that there was no significant change in body mass.
None of these studies back up your assertions.
Fat is lost and muscle gained when eating at maintance or slightly above in a recomp. Not in a deficit bar initial newbie gains that at most will be a lb or two if you're really lucky.
The person is gaining weight steadily. They are not in a deficit.
The people who were happy at a higher weight than they expected still lost weight. This doesn't mean they continued to build muscle as they lost weight, just that they kept what they had unlike a lot of dieters.
Sigh.
You are in a calorie deficit if you lose fat (3500 calories in deficit for every pound of fat lost). If gaining muscle required a calorie surplus (which it does not), and losing fat required a calorie deficit (which it does) then those who recomp and do both at the same time would be in both a calorie deficit and surplus at the same time (and you say I don't make any sense).
Anyone who loses fat is in a calorie deficit regardless of whether or not they lose weight. So, if I gain 2 lbs of water and lose 1 lb of fat, I was in a calorie deficit, even though the scale shows a weight gain - see how it works?
People who gain muscle while losing fat are therefore automatically in a calorie deficit, regardless of what the scale says. The muscle gain is from activity and available protein, not the extra calories. These studies show that muscle can be gained in a calorie deficit (as established by fat loss).
So glad you addressed how none of the studies backed your claims, I'm guessing you still haven't read them.
And just lol to your "understanding" of how the body works. That last paragraph well I just can't even...
Whose body are we talking about here?
Is it @Iron_Feline or is it @kyta32 or is it @runner475 or is it @int3rpo1
I'm really in this tight situation where for past almost a year now my scale has not moved even 0.5 lbs plus minus.
I'm in Calorie Deficit but I have come down from 12 size pant to now 8 size pant.
From XL size, I'm now wearing Large size Tees (I have boobs - 38 D bra)
What in the world is going now that the scale won't move in spite of being in calorie deficit.
If this is not "muscle gain" @ Calorie Deficit then what in the world is this?
I weigh everything that goes in my mouth exception when I go out to eat.
Whose " body works" are we referring here? These are my results. They don't fit into anything that was mentioned.
EDTA : I weigh everything in grams on food scale that goes in my mouth exception when I go out to eat.
I go to a HIIT class lately and every Monday and Friday my trainer makes me weigh on his scale. And his response just 2 weeks back in his own words "What in the world! You are steady. It's good but ...."
Actually they do.
Congrats you've hit the sweet spot for a body recomp. You're not eating at a deficit or you would have lost weight but does that matter if you're getting smaller?
Here is where lyle addresses body recomp
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/adding-muscle-while-losing-fat-qa.html/
I'm so out if this conversation, if you want to believe that your bodies are so super special that they defy science be my guest.0 -
Iron_Feline wrote: »Iron_Feline wrote: »Iron_Feline wrote: »Liftng4Lis wrote: »
Ok. Thanks.
No it isn't. Here's two studies where LBM and strength increased as fat mass was lost in elite athletes.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21896944
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21558571?dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000,f1000m,isrctn (abstracts only, sorry)
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/58/4/561.long
Muscle gains in weight training obese females during 800 cal/day diets verified by biopsy.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002822398000947
Loss of fat and gains in fat-free mass (lbm) in normal weight women eating ad libitum while weight training.
LBM and muscle can be gained as fat is lost (and fat is only lost in a calorie deficit). This can happen in both trained (non-newbie) and untrained individuals. The gain in muscle may mask some fat loss, and I've read posts from people who end up happy at higher weights than they expected to, as the last time they were at that weight they were significantly less muscled. In people who are already lean, a smaller deficit is recommended to protect LBM when restricting calories to lose fat. Bulking/cutting is faster, and less frustrating, but it is possible to build muscle in a calorie deficit, for both newbies and more experienced lifters.
Lol no.
In the first two studies the LBM was small compared to the fat loss and more importantly they lost weigh.
The person you are referencing is gaining weigh. They are not gaining muscle at a rate that masks fat loss.
If they had gained a little weight but then it levelled off I would say they had newbie gains then ending up doing a slow recomp. But they said their weight is steadily rising. So they are not in a deficit.
Did you even read the third study? They didn't gain muscle, in fact 24% of the weight they lost was from LBM. It states that weight loss at a severe deficit is not affected by lifting and it doesn't alter the composition of the weight loss.
And the fourth is discussing body recomp. You'll note that there was no significant change in body mass.
None of these studies back up your assertions.
Fat is lost and muscle gained when eating at maintance or slightly above in a recomp. Not in a deficit bar initial newbie gains that at most will be a lb or two if you're really lucky.
The person is gaining weight steadily. They are not in a deficit.
The people who were happy at a higher weight than they expected still lost weight. This doesn't mean they continued to build muscle as they lost weight, just that they kept what they had unlike a lot of dieters.
Sigh.
You are in a calorie deficit if you lose fat (3500 calories in deficit for every pound of fat lost). If gaining muscle required a calorie surplus (which it does not), and losing fat required a calorie deficit (which it does) then those who recomp and do both at the same time would be in both a calorie deficit and surplus at the same time (and you say I don't make any sense).
Anyone who loses fat is in a calorie deficit regardless of whether or not they lose weight. So, if I gain 2 lbs of water and lose 1 lb of fat, I was in a calorie deficit, even though the scale shows a weight gain - see how it works?
People who gain muscle while losing fat are therefore automatically in a calorie deficit, regardless of what the scale says. The muscle gain is from activity and available protein, not the extra calories. These studies show that muscle can be gained in a calorie deficit (as established by fat loss).
So glad you addressed how none of the studies backed your claims, I'm guessing you still haven't read them.
And just lol to your "understanding" of how the body works. That last paragraph well I just can't even...
Whose body are we talking about here?
Is it @Iron_Feline or is it @kyta32 or is it @runner475 or is it @int3rpo1
I'm really in this tight situation where for past almost a year now my scale has not moved even 0.5 lbs plus minus.
I'm in Calorie Deficit but I have come down from 12 size pant to now 8 size pant.
From XL size, I'm now wearing Large size Tees (I have boobs - 38 D bra)
What in the world is going now that the scale won't move in spite of being in calorie deficit.
If this is not "muscle gain" @ Calorie Deficit then what in the world is this?
I weigh everything that goes in my mouth exception when I go out to eat.
Whose " body works" are we referring here? These are my results. They don't fit into anything that was mentioned.
EDTA : I weigh everything in grams on food scale that goes in my mouth exception when I go out to eat.
I go to a HIIT class lately and every Monday and Friday my trainer makes me weigh on his scale. And his response just 2 weeks back in his own words "What in the world! You are steady. It's good but ...."
Actually they do.
Congrats you've hit the sweet spot for a body recomp. You're not eating at a deficit or you would have lost weight but does that matter if you're getting smaller?
Here is where lyle addresses body recomp
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/adding-muscle-while-losing-fat-qa.html/
I'm so out if this conversation, if you want to believe that your bodies are so super special that they defy science be my guest.
I'm reading the link that you have provided. Thanks alot.
Please do not misunderstand. I'm myself frustrated. I want to make that scale move because as a runner I want to be lighter than what I'm right now. That's the primary reason it matters to me. Really my intention is not to challenge anything and definitely not science.
But once again thanks a lot for the link.
Just an FYI - I'm right now on 1850 Calories (my maintenance is 2100) and don't eat back my exercise calories. I did try for a month to be on 1600 calories and felt tired, sleepy, sick and was always hungry.
Have an awesome day.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 423 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions